Cubism & Color Field Painting By Kathleen Karlsen, MA |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 In spite of the almost undeniable links between Impressionism and Color Field painting (see introductory article on Color Field painting), it is instead the connection between Cubism and Color Field painting that is most readily admitted by Color Field painters themselves. However, this is not to say that the three primary American Color Field painters (Helen Frankenthaler, b.1928; Morris Louis, 1912-1962; and Kenneth Noland, b.1924) adopted the conventions of Cubism. On the contrary, much of what they developed through their experimentation was a reaction against Cubism’s shallow, agitated and crumpled space; its tight, sculptural forms; and it’s essentially graphic structure. Rather than trying to deepen Cubism’s shallow space, the Color Field painters further flattened the pictorial space by almost completely eliminating both brush-strokes and drawing. The soak-stain approach developed by Frankenthaler in the early 1950s reinforced the two-dimensionality of the canvas. Frankenthaler’s technique consisted of greatly diluting paint and then applying the thinned pigments onto unprimed canvas by spilling or staining. In this way, the paint soaked directly into the weave of the canvas. The space normally created by surface illusions was therefore virtually non-existent.
Noland did utilize free hand painting with brushes within the hard-edged shapes, but his tints are strong and consistently flatter in texture and appearance than those of either Louis or Frankenthaler. Certainly his surfaces lacked the disconcerting restlessness that typified shallow Cubist space.
Noland’s opposition to the Cubist structure, however, took him in a notably different direction. The structure of Cubism, based on light and dark rather than color relationships, was essentially graphic. Noland’s ambition, therefore, was to transform this into a structure based on color. As noted above, Noland chose to base his works on a structure of simplified geometric forms which would serve merely as racks for color.
Mondrian’s concern was with creating balanced asymmetry, whereas Noland focused on the utilization of balanced symmetry. This was especially true in his Circle paintings, which employ the center as a fulcrum, and in the majority of his mature work. When Noland did employ asymmetry, he did not necessarily strive for the more conventional balance that Mondrian achieved.
Noland also availed himself of a wide range of expressive color in contrast with Mondrian’s strict limitation. Mondrian further constrained himself to horizontals and verticals while Noland experimented with curves, spheres, and diagonals. Although Noland’s paintings are categorized as “hard-edged", their edges actually possess numerous irregularities on both a large and small scale.
Each of these three color field painters both adopted and rejected the conventions of Cubism. This led each to their own interpretation of painting and to the innovations in method and result that are characteristic of American Color Field painting. SEE Kathleen's ABSTRACT ART HERE ©2007 Kathleen Karlsen
RESOURCES: Books Arnason, H.H.. History of Modern Art: Painting, Sculpture, Architecture, Photography. New York: Abrams, 1986. Battcock, Gregory, ed. The New Art: A Critical Anthology, rev. ed. New York: E.P. Dutton, 1973. Chevreul, M.E. The Principals of Harmony and Contrast of Colors and Their Applications to the Arts (1839). Ed. Faber Birren. New York: Reinhold, 1967. Elderfield, John. Morris Louis. Haarlem, England: Arts Council of Great Britain, 1974. Hughes, Robert. The Shock of the New. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991. LeClair, Charles. Color in Contemporary Painting. New York: Watson-Guptill, 1991. Lucie-Smith, Edward. Art Now: From Abstract Expressionism to Surrealism. New York: William Morrow, 1981. Lucie-Smith, Edward. Movements in Art Since 1945, rev. ed. London: Rose, Barbara. American Painting: The Twentieth Century, rev. ed. New York: Rizzoli International, 1986. Rose, Barbara. Frankenthaler. New York: Abrams, 1971. Selz, Peter. Art In Our Times: A Pictorial History 1890-1980. New York: Upright, Diane. Morris Louis: The Complete Paintings. New York: Abrams, 1985. Waldeman, Diane. Kenneth Noland: A Retrospective. New York: Abrams, 1977. Websites Article Use Policy: All content on this web site is protected by international copyright laws for intellectual property and may not be reproduced, used, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior permission. Contact the author for permission to reprint articles for your own website, newsletter or other publications. Credit must be given to the author, a copyright notification must be included and a link to http://www.kathleenkarlsen.com. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Louis’s adaptation of Frankenthaler’s method, which he contacted during a visit with Noland to her studio in New York in 1953, was more systematic. Although Louis worked in closely protected privacy, the general facts of his novel procedures are known. Like Frankenthaler, Louis poured thinned acrylic paint onto unsized canvas. Louis’s exploration of the properties of paint led him to develop his own characteristic ways to subtly channel the pigments. 
Louis draped and sometimes stapled raw canvas to a frame or scaffolding that could be moved to control the flow of the paint. He also employed a stick wrapped in gauze when he desired to further direct the flow of the paint. The canvas itself may have been pleated or held in troughs. Larger works were created in sections and a fan was used to speed drying. By utilizing these approaches, Louis was able to manipulate the paint without disturbing the flattened space. 
Likewise, Kenneth Noland’s distinctive methods completed the flattening of space begun by the Cubists. Noland’s early experiments included thickly applying paint with his fingers as well as pouring and staining in thin washes. Once he had begun exclusively employing geometric shapes, he defined his shapes through taping or by lightly outlining objects such as dinner plates or hoops. 
Cubist painting also involved sculptural forms that the Cubists thought were necessary as a part of the traditional structure of painting. These forms limited the size of their pieces since they could not be related to one another in a unified manner across a wide area of canvas. One of the challenges for abstract painting in general, and for the Color Field painters in particular, was to find a way to successfully create a larger format. Leading the way to this new format was the pivotal American artist Jackson Pollack 
This approach, in direct contrast with the complicated Cubist compositions, also reveals Noland’s indebtedness to Piet Mondrian, an exceptional Dutch painter who had himself arrived at abstraction via Cubism. Mondrian's work was based on a grid structure and the simplified color scheme of blue, yellow, red, black and white. In spite of these similarities, however, Noland’s methods differed from Mondrian’s system in his solutions to several fundamental artistic issues. 
In Noland’s chevron painting entitled 17th Stage (1964), for example, the tip of the chevron is significantly angled to the left rather than ending in the center of the bottom edge of the painting. The viewer’s sense of imbalance (which must be greatly increased when standing in front of this large, 95” x 83” canvas!) seems to be part of Noland’s optical play.
The splashing effect in the outermost ring of Whirl is a departure from a true "heard edge". More subtle but clearly evident irregularities are present in all of the edges of the chevron bands in 17th Stage. Even the more perfected edges of the circular bands in Noland’s highly controlled works such as Sunshine (1961) still contain perceptible irregularities. Noland’s search is apparently not for the stability and classical balance of Mondrian’s abstract works, but for energetic and lively effects which are masterful in their own right.
